Global warmist CULT get more desperate by the day (Earth) You can ( desperate drivel the AGW belivers)
Global warming deniers get more desperate by the day (Earth)
You can see it in the desperate drivel the AGW CULT post on this forum all the time.

Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.

Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written.

President Obama’s plan to defeat the Islamic State is already showing signs of falling apart (see, i.e. “Arabs Give Tepid Support to U.S. Fight Against ISIS” and “U.S. Pins Hope on Syrian Rebels With Loyalties All Over the Map”).

But today’s real game-changer has to be renowned Yale Law School constitutional scholar Bruce Ackerman’s impassioned New York Times op-ed opus, in which he argues that by unilaterally seizing the power to declare a new war, Obama is “betraying the Constitution he swore to uphold.” Ackerman writes:

Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.

Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written.

If you haven’t already, go read every word.

In an addendum posted on the Balkinization legal blog, Ackerman also notes Congress’ explicit refusal in its 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to “grant presidents a free-hand to wage preemptive war against future terrorist threats.”

The New York Times editorial board, meanwhile, focuses its ire on Congress, for being “perfectly willing to abdicate one of its most consequential powers”:
Read more

Much is being made of the big turnaround for President Obama, from being a man firmly identified with pulling out of wars to a man launching a new one.

And he did, of course, announce a significant escalation of the U.S. military response to the Islamic State.

But if you parse his Wednesday night speech carefully, he also came about as close to saying “calm down” as was politically palatable, given the hysteria and hyperbole attending the matter here in Washington.

First, he established the context:

We can’t erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today.

Quite philosophical, really.

And as for the Islamic State in particular, yes it’s “one of those groups” and yes it’s done some horrible things, but — in stark contrast to the sometimes nutty talk on TV — Obama made it clear that it’s hardly an imminent danger to America:
Read more

President Obama’s plan to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State counts on pretty much everything going right in a region of the world where pretty much anything the U.S. does always goes wrong.

Our newspapers of record today finally remembered it’s their job to point stuff like that out.

The New York Times, in particular, calls bullshit this morning — albeit without breaking from the classic detached Timesian tonelessness.

Mark Mazzetti, Eric Schmitt and Mark Landler (with contributions from Matt Apuzzo and James Risen) start by pointing out the essential but often overlooked fact that “American intelligence agencies have concluded that [the Islamic State] poses no immediate threat to the United States.”

And then, with the cover of “some officials and terrorism experts,” they share a devastating analysis of all the coverage that has come before:

Some officials and terrorism experts believe that the actual danger posed by ISIS has been distorted in hours of television punditry and alarmist statements by politicians, and that there has been little substantive public debate about the unintended consequences of expanding American military action in the Middle East.

You’ve got to love these quotes:

Daniel Benjamin, who served as the State Department’s top counterterrorism adviser during Mr. Obama’s first term, said the public discussion about the ISIS threat has been a “farce,” with “members of the cabinet and top military officers all over the place describing the threat in lurid terms that are not justified.”

“It’s hard to imagine a better indication of the ability of elected officials and TV talking heads to spin the public into a panic, with claims that the nation is honeycombed with sleeper cells, that operatives are streaming across the border into Texas or that the group will soon be spraying Ebola virus on mass transit systems — all on the basis of no corroborated information,” said Mr. Benjamin, who is now a scholar at Dartmouth College.

A few paragraphs later, “some American officials” return, warning “of the potential danger of a prolonged military campaign in the Middle East, led by the United States” and saying “there are risks that escalating airstrikes could do the opposite of what they are intended to do and fan the threat of terrorism to American soil.”

One of the reasons the mainstream media failed to expose the fraud perpetrated by the Bush White House during the run-up to war in Iraq was that it virtually ignored dissenters. And there were some. Even in Washington.

Most notably, in September 2002, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy gave a bold, moving speech outlining his view “that America should not go to war against Iraq unless and until other reasonable alternatives are exhausted.”

The elite Washington media barely even made mention of it.

So with that very much in mind, this blog intends to call attention to those few members of Congress who, in contrast to the Congressional Hyperbole Caucus, are saying things about the U.S. response to the Islamic State that indicate that they might possibly be advocating something somewhat like restraint. Maybe.

Jen Bendery of the Huffington Post found exactly one member of Congress who wasn’t banging the drums of war: populist Iowa Democratic Senator Tom Harkin.

“It’s fear-mongering. It’s what happened after 9/11. ‘Oh my god, they’ve got these planes crashing. Now they’re going to take over America.’ That’s nonsense,” Harkin told HuffPost. “We just keep jumping from one mistake to another. I have a feeling we’re going to do the same thing with [the Islamic State].”

Rep. Rick Nolan (D-Minn.) was talking about an alternate path in a statement he issued on Monday. “I encourage them to employ the same intelligence resources — and the same selective, highly effective means they used to bring down Osama Bin Laden,” he wrote. “Special operations of this kind do not involve U.S. troops on the ground, the killing of innocent people, or the re-involvement of the United States in another terribly destructive, expensive, open-ended conflict in that region.”

Nolan told a local paper that he will only support humanitarian efforts in the conflict in Syria. “When we get ourselves involved in that conflict, then we become a part of the problem and the solution becomes ours,” he said.

Here is Rep. Jim McDermott, a liberal Democrat from Washington State, on MSNBC’s Hardball the other night, after Chris Matthews asked him if he’d support the use of special forces in Syria to go after the Islamic State:Read more

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About homelessholocaust

Tijuana Hobo , Hebrew Hobo Railroad Rabbi, The Truth Teller Tell True Truth Truthfully. If the Truth is Repugnant to you, You are a Reagan Cultist.
Ronald Reagan was Taught by L. Ron Hubbard, Reagan & Hubbard FOUNDED THE SCIENCE FICTION MIND FUCKING GAME- SCIENTOLOGY- then REAGAN USED NERO LINGUIST PROGRAMMING as PRESIDENT to MURDER THE MINDS of AMERICANS!